my-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a long-running operation with progress notifications, which implies it may take time and provide intermediate updates. However, it doesn't specify whether it's safe, reversible, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The mention of 'progress notifications' is helpful but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the 'ctx' parameter omission reduces efficiency, and the description could be more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (long-running with progress) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and key parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects. The presence of an output schema means return values are covered, but overall context for safe usage is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'duration' (total duration in seconds) and 'steps' (number of progress steps), which are not documented in the schema. However, it omits the 'ctx' parameter entirely, leaving it undocumented. The description partially compensates but has a significant gap for one parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Demonstrates a long-running operation with progress notifications.' This specifies the verb ('demonstrates') and resource ('long-running operation'), though it's somewhat abstract rather than concrete. It distinguishes from siblings like 'echo' or 'sum' by focusing on progress notifications, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potentially similar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various utilities, there's no indication whether this is for testing, simulation, or actual operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.